Motherhood, Work and Marissa Mayer

"I don't think that I consider myself a feminist. . . I certainly believe in equal rights, I believe that women are just as capable. . . but I don't have, I think, the militant drive and the chip on the shoulder that comes with that."

Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo

It's easy to portray feminism as humourless, whiny and unreasonable, and subscribe to the philosophy of ruthless individualism that says "I'm alright, ergo any other woman complaining is just being pathetic." There's probably no greater example of this when a wealthy, educated white woman implies that feminism is for women with a "chip on their shoulder." Or perhaps there is - when this woman announces she only intends to take as much "limited time off" after giving birth to twins as she did with her last pregnancy (a fortnight) and "work throughout" her pregnancy.

The fact said woman is expected to make a statement at all about her plans demonstrates exactly why we still need feminism - did anyone ask Mark Zuckerburg how he'll combine family and work after the recent announcement that his wife is pregnant, or how much time he intends to take off for paternity leave? Have they fuck. The fact one woman is being held up and scrutinised as the ultimate example of how to combine motherhood and work also demonstrates why we need feminism - because we still treat people who manage to be CEOs and mothers as special and interesting cases, rather than the norm. In the rush to condemn Mayer for behaving like a robot, for shitting on other women, for making the need for maternity leave seem unreasonable and indulgent, I haven't seen anyone ask whether perhaps her husband intends to take a more involved role in parenting their twins, freeing her up to return to work. The focus remains on women's actions, and on finding them wanting. Until that changes, feminism remains necessary - even if those who enjoy the gains of feminism while publicly distancing themselves from the movement would like to pretend otherwise.

Nowhere is it more apparent that the work of feminism remains in its infancy than the battleground of motherhood and work. As someone who intends to remain childfree for life, I often feel like I've gotten off easy; I'll never have to endure any of these shocking experiences, from being insidiously squeezed out of my job, to simply being sacked or made redundant on completely specious grounds, all for the crime of trying to combine mothering with work. True, I'll still be looked at as a womb on legs by many employers, and suffer the resulting discrimination - as one respondent says, "It’s obvious employers don’t want to hire women who are in their 30s out of fear they’ll disappear on maternity leave," and several other report that employers aren't shy of asking women about their plans for marriage and motherhood, even though this strikes me as illegal under equality legislation. However, by not having children, I do feel like I'm refusing to give my reproductive labour to a society, and in particular a work culture, that will only punish me for doing so - and that feels like a powerful statement. One I should not need to make if, as some would seductively like to persuade us, feminism's work is truly done and complaining about pregnancy related discrimination is just self-indulgent "negativity," as Marissa Mayer seems to imply.

Ultimately, Marissa Mayer can, should and will do what the hell she wants, and quite rightly. I do question how much of a "choice" it is to take two weeks' maternity leave in a culture that prizes long hours, presenteeism, and inflexible working as signs of commitment, but I also applaud Mayer for having at least extended decent parental leave options to Yahoo employees, when the USA is notoriously behind the rest of the world in terms of lacking any statutory parental pay. Surely the rules affecting employees down on the ground are of far more import (and will hopefully set a precendent for other tech companies) than the choices of one extraordinarily privileged woman? How Meyer intends to manage such short maternity leave is up to her, but one can bet it's not without a hell of a lot of support, and much of it being the kind that money can buy. Most women can't afford a nanny, and don't live in a household where one (or even both) partners can afford to take time off to care for a newborn, and it's their struggles we should be focusing on instead. Marissa Mayer is a red herring; let's stop criticising her life choices and start critiquing the culture that still punishes women for daring to try and combine motherhood and work, banish the phrase "trying to have it all" to the dustbin of history where it should long have been slung (has ANYONE ever accused a man who's a father and an employee of trying to "have it all"?!),  and  promote working policies that allow everyone, regardless of gender, to comfortably adjust to the hurricane that is the arrival of a newborn.

Why I Still Think Shulamith Was Right

R.I.P Shulamith Firestone, renowned 2nd-wave feminism who was found dead this week after an ongoing struggle with mental illness.

I first read Firestone's Dialectic of Sex at university, when I was considering writing my dissertation about the topics she dealt with in this ground-breaking book. My tutor proposed that Firestone's book, was 'too dated' and didn't say anything particularly new to a modern audience. I have to say, I disagreed then and I disagreed now. Firestone advocated overthrowing the "tyranny of the biological family" by ending "the reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both". Or, put another way, she did not believe women would ever be truly free until reproduction was divorced from the body. That was bloody radical then, and in this individualistic society where feminism has been warped to support all kinds of unwise behaviour, I think it's even more radical to say it now.

Yes, Firestone's vision sounds a bit sci-fi, but then so would the contraceptive pill, in vitro fertilisation and cell cloning sound barmy and unlikely to anyone living 70 or 100 years ago. How is it that we've mastered most other aspects of our biology and yet pregnancy and childrearing remain as restrictive as ever? That was Firestone's question 32 years ago, and it's a question I still ponder upon now. I do sometimes wonder if the only true way for women to achieve equality is to go on reproductive strike. If women refused to keep on getting pregnant and giving birth to benefit a society that will ultimately only punish them for doing so, perhaps things would change a lot more quickly. No more gender pay gap. No more insidious employment discrimination, where women aren't hired because we're all viewed as potential-wombs-on-legs, and no more mysterious cases of a woman about to take maternity leave when her boss suddenly says 'Funny that, we were going to sack you anyway'. No more lost earnings and forced reliance upon a male partner to subsidise you. No more being seen as 'just a mum' first and a person second.

Easy for me to say, I guess, as I don't want to have children anyway. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that one of the major deterrents from having kids is precisely the way society diminishes and disrespects motherhood, and punishes women for choosing it. Even if I had the slightest inclination towards having kids, I'd still stop and think very hard about whether I wanted to give the gift of my progeny to a society that is going to use that as an excuse to pay me less, offer me substandard employment or no employment after my pregnancy, refuse to provide anything near to state-sponsored childcare, and either force me to rely on a partner for income or go back to work when my episiotomy stitches are still healing just to pay for the eye-poppingly expensive private childcare I would need for my baby. Yeah...I have to say, I don't know why more women don't 'go on strike', but I suppose logic or a sense of collective responsibility can go out of the window if your maternal urges are strong enough.

The point is, I don't think Firestone's words are any less shocking and revolutionary now than they were in 1980. In fact, I think they may be more explosive, as we've become lulled into the belief that equality between the sexes has 'kinda-sorta' been achieved and no one needs to worry any more. But if we look at the amount of women in the British Parliament or the US House, the pitiful amount of women heading FTSE 500 or even 100 companies, the gender pay gap, and the continuing attempts to shove women back into gendered boxes regularly reported on the fantastic @everydaysexism, we soon realise the job is barely even half-done, if that. But to stand up and say 'It's because you keep having babies, dummy', will be met with even more outrage than it would've been 32 years ago, from feminists and non-feminists alike. Thanks to the ruthless culture of individualism (Yo, Thatcher!) that followed Firestone's work, the motto 'If I'm OK, who gives a fuck' soon replaced 'The personal is political' and many women decided as long as they personally felt free, then damn feminism and its progress. Although I do wonder how free anyone feels when they're chained to an incontinent screaming mini-person 24 hours a day, but as long as feminism is read as 'the freedom to do anything you want, as long as you remember to yell IT'S MY CHOICE!', nothing's going to get any better.

I think Firestone hit upon the truth when she applied Marxist theory to the sexist conditions of our society and identified reproduction as the main method of keeping women in an underclass. I have never met a man whose earning potential, professional reputation, body or standing in society was ravaged by having children, but I've seen it happen to pretty much every woman I know who's given birth. And yet they go back for more, and the next generation of women follows blindly. I can't understand it, and I don't know why more women don't opt for the alternative that I'm choosing, but I suppose the myth that 'it's different when it's your own kids' is sufficient to reassure women that they won't be 'that unlucky one' who loses her job/earnings/health/mind from having kids. I just wonder, if Firestone's vision of artificial reproduction, divorced entirely from the female body, came true, how many women would still want to 'do it the old way?'. And I also wonder, if my vision of the improbable reproductive strike were to happen in the meantime, how quickly women's lot as a class would improve? I would wager, VERY quickly. Because when people aren't using all their time, energy and money being an unpaid nursemaid, cook, cleaner and child psychologist, they tend to get quite a bit more demanding about what they want from life. And when half the population can't discriminate against the other half by simple virtue of biology, they either have to find some other excuse very quickly, or start treating them as equals.

Of course there are some softly-softly improvements that have been made to ensure that both sexes share the strain of parenthood, such as the Scandinavian model of non-gendered 'parenting leave, and Google retaining a greater number of female employees by increasing its maternity leave. But are these drops in the ocean what the 2nd wave feminists hoped we would have achieved by now? I seriously doubt it. I think they'd be horrified at the snail-like pace of progress for women even in the richest, most progressive countries in the world, and they'd wonder why. And maybe the answer is, that we never finished the job of truly challenging the society that punishes women for reproducing, and instead thought we could 'change it from within' and give childbearing and rearing a feminist makeover. But as the saying goes, you can't dismantle the master's house using the master's tools. At the moment, all we've got is some mildly tweaked laws and a whole lotta continuing discrimination. 

RIP Shulamith - you spoke to me, even if so few others seem to have listened.

Female Aggression and The London Riots

"It's a shame when women copy men's behaviour no matter how stupid it is."
Skin, singer from Skunk Anansie, 1997

Although the above comment was aimed at the 'ladette' culture of the 90s, and the supposed female empowerment chanted about by the Spice Girls, I think it holds more water than ever today, as we witness the likes of this story emerging in the wake of the London riots.

The story is depressing, it's squalid, it's becoming increasingly familiar. Previously pleasant, bright young person with high hopes for the future descends into violence, vandalism and cruelty that would shame even our primate cousins. Is it any worse because the perpetrator is female? Do we 'expect better' from our daughters than our sons, dismissing the latter as hard-wired for moronic acts of aggression, but assuming the former will display common sense when the chips are down? It's hard to know what to think of humanity in general after what has been witnessed in Britain's cities this week, let alone deconstruct how gender comes into things. Perhaps girls are, in very general terms, less aggressive, less impulsive and less likely to resort to violence. However, some girls are clearly just as capable of picking up a brick, joining the melee, and indulging in a spot of looting, and are as ready as their male counterparts to turn violently on anyone attempting to stop them. They're not the majority of the rioters - men are - and they're not the majority of girls - is any particular group? - but they're out there, reminding us that the 'gentler sex' is just as capable of behaving with mindless aggression as its hairier, nastier opposite.

Still, it's interesting the way blame for the riots has still, in some quarters of the UK news media, found its way to the feet of women; albeit in a roundabout way. If there was a drinking game that involved slugging a shot of whiskey every time a commentator on the riots mentioned 'broken homes' as a factor in the violence, I think my liver would have shut down long ago. If I took a drink every time single parents were mentioned in a similar vein, I might not quite be hooked up to a drip in hospital, but I'd at least be at the point of wearing my underwear on my head and singing 'Step Back In Time'. Although I've not actually heard anyone brave enough to say what they really mean by 'single parents' - and we all know that's 'single mothers' - the frequent references to 'fatherless families' and 'lack of male role models' say as much as you need to know about the views taken by the powers that be of lone mothers' capabilities to raise respectful, trustworthy, law-abiding children. Yes, the use of those terms implies there is also blame for runaway fathers - and perhaps blame as well for fathers who are around but drink, hit, molest or sponge off their loved ones, thereby providing terrible role models for their children. However, if we consider that 90% of single-parent families are headed by women, then to blame them for producing 'feral' youths, is to effectively say that women alone make crap parents, and that the introduction of a man into their family unit would somehow be the solution to all their problems.

I don't think I need to start a run-down of all the ways in which the 'nuclear family' has often been a far more corrosive and unhealthy place for children than many alternative family set-ups. However, if evidence were needed that you can end up an ignorant, violent twat whether you've got two parents or one struggling mum at home, then let's look back at the story of Chelsea Ives. It was her own mother who saw her daughter's image on TV in footage of the riots, and shopped her to the police. Is Chelsea the victim, not just of lousy parenting by a single mother, but also by a cruel matriarch who compounded her 'alienation' by handing her over to the authorities? Doesn't really look that way. Vivienne Ives was watching the footage with her husband, Chelsea's father. Their daughter was a 'promising athlete and Olympic ambassador'. Could we get any further away from the stereotype of the angry, rootless drop-out who bursts out of their 'broken home' in rage and flings their tracksuited body at the first shop window they see? Actually, yes. I was dismayed but not surprised to read yesterday about another female rioter, Laura Johnson, who appeared in court yesterday. Ms Johnson is an undergraduate at Exeter University, the daughter of a company director, and the product of a high-ranking grammar school. Oh, David Cameron - please worm your way out of that one and explain to me exactly how having happily married parents, GCSEs and A Levels to your name, and a tennis court in the back garden insures against a tendency toward naked greed and gleeful destruction.

As we're starting to see, caricaturing the rioters and simplifying the causes of their actions doesn't help anyone. Plenty of people were out there, male and female, upper, middle and working-classes, black, white, Asian, mostly making humongous arses of themselves. There were also plenty of members of each group conducting themselves with immense dignity, be it Tariq Jahan responding to his son's needless death with a call for peace, or those who volunteered their time and energy to clean up the aftermath. The government will point fingers at whoever is a most convenient sitting duck, but whether they point at a nice well-heeled couple from Surrey, or a downtrodden single mother on benefits from Peckham, they're conveniently ignoring where so much of the blame lies. But I guess pointing the finger at themselves is not what politicians are known for.